Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
In Western societies, antisemitism is particularly noxious. To be understood, however, it needs to be precisely defined and set in the in the broader context of antipathy on racial, religious and other grounds.
As the government drafts legislation to stem the rising tide of misinformation circulating online, the nation debates: will these measures sufficiently regulate online content and curb potential harms or threaten freedom of expression? This moment is a critical test for the integrity of Australia's public discourse.
In the wake of the referendum, how can a curriculum be used to foster a sense of reflection, understanding, and dialogue among young minds? As classrooms become the backdrop for conversations around Indigenous voices, democracy, and social change, what does it mean to truly listen?
The Australian Indigenous Voice referendum has been rejected, as anticipated by many, with the meaning and consequences now up for debate. This debate may be as crucial as the referendum debate itself to determining the future of reconciliation and what it means to be Australian in the 21st century.
This month we navigate the dual milestones of a failed constitutional referendum and the First Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Seemingly disparate, these events converge in debates over tradition, leadership, and discourse. Their outcomes promise to shape the nation's spiritual and secular contours for generations.
This vote will be remembered as an opportunity for Australians to grapple with the injustices of history, and imagine a more just way forward. My hope is that each person voting will have done just that – and whether they vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’, that they are making their vote bearing in mind what they think will best reconcile our nation’s past and look forward to a more just future.
An examination of school reading lists and libraries unveils striking parallels with the debates and concerns surrounding the Referendum, highlighting the pervasive societal anxieties and the intricate interplay of national identity and values, and the ongoing need for empathy.
The looming referendum challenges us to confront our shared history and consider a united path forward. Amidst the deep-rooted pain and the quest for truth, reconciliation and healing, can this vote be the turning point that signals a brighter, more inclusive future for all?
From cherished family anecdotes to narratives that divide societies, stories have a way of bonding groups and affecting our thinking on the challenges facing our nation. It is our stories that either draw people closer or keep us from recognising the humanity in each other.
The voices of Australia's First Nations communities are asking to be heard. With the upcoming referendum, the nation faces a decision both about equity and identity. How might genuine hope and understanding impact Australia's path forward and address longstanding disparities?
In the lead up to the Voice referendum, there's a subtle yet seismic undercurrent at play: How do we sustain a meaningful democratic conversation when the foundational truths seem so fragmented? Our ability to connect, converse, and find consensus could be the real referendum of our times.
As society grapples with evolving concepts of gender, and as the Catholic Church has maintained a stance in conflict with modern gender theory, recent statements by American bishops spotlight the chasm between doctrine and contemporary gender theories. Can these differences be resolved?