"You see, academics don't lean towards the left, I have met a handful of conservative over more than two decades at three unis"

Various polls show that humanities academics vote more to the left than the general population - just as journalists, my profession do.

What is more damaging for academics is that they don't admit it. How can Bonnell say with a straight face that academics such as him are not out of sync with mainstream opinion when he goes on to list things which have been electorally popular.

The Liberal Party may not stand up to Locke when it comes to liberalism but who cares. They are trying to be electorally popular, unlike some academics who wear their unpopularity as a badge of honour.

Of all the mainstream parties they would still be the best at sticking up for the individual rights of the most people. Labor would probably be second, followed by Democrats, Nationals and the Greens.

If only they would do the much needed tax reform to give people even greater freedom to spend mony on what they want to - instead of giving it to junkies, minority programs and out of touch professors to rant about the evils of decent, hard-working folk.

t.u.s

What do those who disagree with Bonnell want? Do they want academics that are politically neutral, ideological eunuchs? They simply don't exist.

Oh, hang on, now I get it!

They want conservative right wingers who are blessed with an innate talent for unbiased and level headed objectivity and who would love to read Geoffrey Blainey's historical epics out loud to their classes, set exams that test how well they were listening because this will also would allow them to identify anyone with socialist, feminist, Bolshevik, gay, metro sexual and Aboriginalist sentiments. 'We can't these trouble makers mucking up how we teach'

Melleuish stated in a pontificating little piece in the Review - Institute of Public Affairs;

"Conservatism is about human beings and their values; it is about preserving values that have worked and ensuring that humans do not throw out the baby with the bathwater when they engage in change".

But then he declares this about historical analysis carried out by the ideologically driven academics he despises.

" Nevertheless they should be seen as a challenge to re-consider European history, to overcome Eurocentrism and to provide a much more balanced picture of the history of the human race over the past 2000 years". http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/internalgrants/melleuish.html

I have a feeling Greg is still searching for a place in the sun.

The "problem" (as demanded by Frankgol)is that academics are out of touch with mainstream Australia. The issues that cocern them don't concern the rest of the community. Many academics in the humanities would be shocked to find out what the community really thinks of them. Humanities Departments are seen as largely being irrelevant. (And if you ask me how I know I have the unpleasant task of responding to Ministerials from the public on this very matter).Most Humanities academics are living off the goodwill generated by their science and business collegaues and their research and innovation output. How is Bonnel part of it? Well his piece is nothing more than a polemic in favour of his own status quo.

I'm a bit clearer now, thank you chronicler. The "problem" (as you declare it) is that "academics are out of touch with mainstream Australia. The issues that cocern [sic] them don't concern the rest of the community". But then you confuse me by reducing "academics" to "many academics in the humanities" most of whom are living off the goodwill generated by their science and business collegaues [sic]. So that narrows it down a bit.

How does chronicler know this? He has "the unpleasant task of responding to Ministerials from the public on this very matter". Interesting methodology! Reduce the generic "community" to unquantified members of "the public" who write complaints to an unspecified Minister who sends them to chronicler for a reply. That person then assumes the complaints are valid and represents them as the one and only truth about "many academics in the humanities".

What's the response in logic to the argument that most members of the community don't write to any Ministers about academics and therefore that indicates that the "community" is generally happy with universities? (Another possibility is that they are apathetic to the issue, or don't have a view one way or the other, or express their opinions in other ways - but let's not make it too complex for simple minds today.)

And thank you chronicler for advising me how Bonnel [sic] is part of the problem? "Well his piece is nothing more than a polemic in favour of his own status quo." Well that saves us all having to do any analysis of his evidence or to identify how his argument is flawed, doesn't it?

When you draft letters for your Minister, chronicler, how do you assess the claims made by members of the "public"? How do you go about advising your Minister whether his correspondents are representative of the "community"? Did the truth just fall out of the sky one day and hit you on the head? Maybe that's the problem?

Dr. Bonnell should openly declare his affiliation - he is the President of the NTEU at UQ. Much of this article is Strawman argumentation that doesn't really address the core issue of trying to solve a problem that MOST humanities academics are aware of - how do we stay relevant to the wider community?

To answer "more funding" is simplistic and only part of the solution. Much wider & painful organisational change is needed to make Australian universities responsive to the marketplace of ideas and student needs.

Chronicler, 'the issues that concern them don't concern the rest of the community'? Are you serious? You're right, I haven't met many members of the community concerned about the Peloponnesian Wars. Or Russian Literature. Or learning any foreign language whatsoever. We better scrap all that, then. Ironically, when university humanities departments do offer courses in issues that 'concern the community', like 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer' or 'Australian Idol', your mob accuses them of being frivolous and wasting taxpayers money.

Anti-intellectual populism is a distasteful feature of pretty much all societies, and its presence shouldn't be construed as a legitimate argument against higher education.