The young Libs have been taken over by the far right Religious nuts just like the NSW Lib party. Neither of these groups have had a thought of their own for 50 years. They take their queues from the US far right. Anybody who has looked at what is going on over there knows " Academic Freedom" is just another way of selling far right religious fundamentalism.

Thank you for adding this thoughtful article on a interesting topic, Dr Gelber.

As someone with an research interest in Free Speech, do you really think that this enquiry by the Australian Senate is likely to have the effect of shutting it down, even marginally? Isn't it more likely to promote debate than to stifle it? After all, who is afraid of Australian Senators (except possibly Bob Brown)? Also, presumably there will be Senators of more than one party involved in the enquiry - so at this point one really couldn't predict what its conclusions might be.

We have already seen these rightwing governments Labor and Liberal 'lean on' academics to 'adjust' and 'upgrade' substandard exam qualifications for full fee paying students. A survey of almost 1,000 academics in social sciences back in 2001, across the country conducted by the Australia Institute, revealed that universities were giving full fee-paying students preferential treatment, including altering exam results and PASSING students who had failed. University administrations, ordered by the government, will seek to silence or intimidate dissenters as commercial considerations which are generating enormous profits from full fee payers increasingly dominate university life. Let us not forget university education was paid for a couple of times over through taxes before big hex and upfront fees were added creating a bonanza for the governments and their predatory cronies. Moreover big administration costs jumped sharply back in about 2000 for often minimal services students were already entitled too. These are very criminal practises against society when you exploit and milk students to the hilt. Obviously, criminal practises then become the norm all down the line. And Academia will be told to toe the line!
Let us also not forget the governments pulverised and cauterised the ABC of any dissension or critical comments - bringing in a dumbing down process to deaden the senses of the public. As well as deadening the senses through all the cuts to the Arts and culture - in order to degrade and debase society!

Good article, Katharine.

The Young Liberals' campaign (and now the Senate enwuiry) are very dangerous because they are attacks on academic freedom.

This is a trend that has been going on for some time, pushed by both versions of Conservatism in Australia. I am thinking here for example of the curtailing of freedoms in the name of the war on terror, the imprisonment of David Hicks and so on. This creeping monolith of conservative thought needs to be opposed.

As a murderous stalinist once wrote (correctly I believe: "Let a humdred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend." Conservatives (from the stalinists to the religious right via the ALP and Liberals and Nationals) want to destroy the garden of oppositional thought.

Oh relax, Passy - nothing the Young Libs do is extremely dangerous...

I think that there have always been some pretty profound biases in academia which have had enormous consequences. I’m talking about all the sorts of studies and educational directions that are geared towards the continuous expansion of our economy, population and society, in a most directly unsustainable and environmentally damaging manner.

This is what our politicians, economists and business people have been demanding. Therefore, it is largely what academia has been concentrating on. It is what gets funded!

Sustainability-oriented studies and academics have by and large struggled badly, as they have had to go against the political tide and have had to be critical of key aspects of our dominant social and economic paradigm – which is profoundly based on continuous unending expansionism.

Even with a greatly increased awareness and sense of urgency about sustainability in recent times, this is still by far the most significant form of bias involved in academia.

Governments are supposed to mitigate the downsides of the profit motive and the constant push for more production, bigger markets and more workers….and protect our future wellbeing!! They have failed dismally.

Academics and their institutions are supposed to recognise the areas in need of study, with one of their prime motives surely being the protection of our society and the achievement of the sacred balance between all things human and the environment… and between resource consumption and waste production, and the ability of the environment to keep providing the necessary resources and absorbing the impacts in an ongoing manner. Surely one of the prime motives of academia has got to be this sort of thing, given that our future wellbeing is so strongly under threat. Academics too have failed dismally.

Dear Bearbrass, you say:

"Oh relax, Passy - nothing the Young Libs do is extremely dangerous..."

Sometimes I have the same thought, looking at these poor deluded Young Libreals and wondering how anyone could take them seriously. they are just so manichean and fervent and dogmatic. But people do take them seriously and will in the future when some of them are in positoons of power.

One of my comrades teaches politics from a marxist perpective at an Australian University. The local student paper published an article that said he marxed people who did not agree with him down. This was a slur on his professional approach, and his integrity, and was I think part of the campaign against diversity of thought which the Young Liberals are leading on campuses across Australia. I doubt that this is an isolated example.

The paper ran an apology. Interestingly it is I believe run by right wing labor students. Tweedledee and tweedledum.

The Young Liberals are a breeding ground for the next generation of Liberal politicians. The training in reaction they receive in their cloistered halls of thought is dangerous for our future.

One final point. Universities are sausage factories for capital. But capital needs to continually innovate and change, so it needs critical thinkers. So there is a balancing act there - capital wants universities to churn out intelligent, critical, questioning sausages.

The problem is not that Universities are infected with left wing idealogues; it is that they are structured and peopled with academics who see their role as being to turn out students who do not question the status quo, ie unthinking sausages.

Find my following research hard to get through to a now dumbed-down OLO:

Geneva and Hague Conventions now just a laughing stock

Caused by an elitist militaristic US now sidestepping the United Nations.

Formerly war-racked nations of Europe, now seem eager to keep mostly away from such problems, especially regarding the US.

Such earlier weaknesses said to have allowed little Israel to join the big powers, and now in possession of over 200 hundred nuclear rockets ready to go.

According to top historians the case of letting Israel begin an illegal nuclear programme so close to its being allowed to return to its original homeland after over two thousand years, has virtually left academic global historians dismayed to the point it is sometimes difficult to get an audience with them.

IT was Henry Kissinger who made a statement, now in US Government archives warning Richard Nixon that keeping quiet about Israel’s venture into atomic warfare, could greatly upset the future balance of power in the Middle East – Thus an Islamic resentment which surely helped to bring on 9/11.

Thus we now have the problem of Israel’s No 1 target, Iran, once former Persia, and now a greater nation of 70 million, in danger of an attack from tiny Israel, with the full weight of the GW Bush driven US Constitutional Prerogative behind her.

It is well to remember that the above has not got global backing nor the backing of the American people, similar to the plan of putting the plentiful remnants of Saddam’s quarter million Iraqi Sunni national guard later turned insurgents against American occupation - and now on the US military payroll as the major focus of the Great Iraqi Awakening.

For more info’ try the Washington Post.

Academia is quite likely the single-most cause of todays social problems. A long way behind in second place is religious fanaticism. The danger with Academia is the fact that it is utterly devoid of common sense & any sense of reality. In fact, any sense at all.

Good point individual, I reckon they should stop reading all those books, stop doing research, and stop trying to inspire students to think critically and simply use "common sense". It was good enough for Pauline!

It seems to me that, although the author of this article argues against the Young Libs' campaign, most of what she says actually agrees with what they are saying.

Online Opinion recently published an article by the campaign director of the Young Liberal campaign, Nigel Freitas (see "More teaching, less preaching", 13/5/07).

Many of the things the two authors are saying seem to match.

For example, Dr Gelbart says:

"Free speech doesn’t mean that the most forceful get to drown others out. But that’s different from foreclosing the opportunity for disagreement. If the possibility of disagreement over contestable questions were foreclosed, that would be a concern."

Nigel Freitas says "a common complaint we have received concerns the mandatory readings chosen by lecturers that may all argue for a particular point of view. For example, several readings on whether Australia needs a Bill of Rights all argued overwhelmingly in the affirmative, presenting students with an unbalanced perspective. In completing essays or exams, students are then required to only reference the materials the lecturer has specified, presenting little opportunity for dissent."

In other words, what Dr Gelbart agrees would "be a concern" is exactly what the Young Liberals are raising.

The problem here seems to be that the source for Dr Gelbart's article is an article that appeared in the Australian on 12 March. But looking at the Young Libs' campaign website www.makeeducationfair.org.au it seems to me that there are a lot of examples that are exactly the sort of thing that Dr Gelbart says would be unacceptable

Ah Rainier,
you've been conspicuous by your absence, been walkabout have you ?
Anyhow, you write of people learning & researching etc. etc. What's that got to do with your average useless academics ? The people who do all these noble things are those who have gone past basic BA & are actually respected & valued members of the community. When I say Academic (and many would agree) I'm referring to those who don't go on studying to become useful but those who keep on being a burden to society & produce nothing beside nonsensical things like PC & sexism. I'm fully aware of learned people doing good things. Sadly, they're outnumbered by learned people whose only sense is nonsense.
Have you really ever seriously tried to find out who makes everyday things work ? Not too many Accies to find among the effort-making revenue producing of any country.

The kind of bias that this lecturer claims isn't happening can be quite easily seen here:

http://www.younglibs.org.au/site//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=60

See quotes on aboriginal history:
* "Australian culture...which for over two centuries has used various forms of overt and covert suppression to subjugate indigenous owners of the land"
* "Economics are closely allied to law and religion and were also used to keep Aboriginal people under white control"
* "the vicious divisions between mainstream and minority politics which have arisen under the Howard government"
* "Why is the Anzac legend such a call to Australian arms ... what other legends might we celebrate instead?"

Sounds pretty biased to me.

It's curious that Katharine's list of reasons 'why a lecturer might reveal their position' is noticably absent the one at hand...that lecturers, like all people, want to influence others towards their own worldview/opinion on important topics.

Seeing first hand the sort of bias that Katharine feels is extremely rare, I am somewhat skeptical of her defense. You have only to walk into a sociology course or even law to find that this bias is all too prevalent.

Perhaps Katharine prefers an environment where her own actions as an educator are above scrutiny, but such an entitlement is certainly not due or necessary for someone who is meant to be a provider of a vital service paid for by both the tax payers and students.

"Academics and their institutions are supposed to recognise the areas in need of study, with one of their prime motives surely being the protection of our society and the achievement of the sacred balance between all things human and the environment… and between resource consumption and waste production, and the ability of the environment to keep providing the necessary resources and absorbing the impacts in an ongoing manner. Surely one of the prime motives of academia has got to be this sort of thing, given that our future wellbeing is so strongly under threat."

Nice sentiment Ludwig, however for a superb example of the lengths that those with great wealth and power will go to to protect and 'grow' their interests, check our the very thorough research by Clyde W Barrow who exposed the pernicious ways and means employed by the richest and most powerful tycoons in America to silence academic dissent against unbridled U$ capitalism, war and so on during earlier 'crises' in the Capitalist system.

'Universities and the Capitalist State: Corporate Liberalism and the
Reconstruction of American Higher Education, 1894-1928. University of Wisconsin Press 1990' is a compelling read, as it paved the way, in my opinion, for the mostly unchallenged imposition upon a troubled world economy - decades later - of Neo-Classical or Neo-Liberal economic THEORY.

As Barrow reveals, speaking out in Academe can be a costly 'freedom'.

Modern academia is veiled in agenda, as a function of relativist dichotomies and the elevation of the 'personal narrative' to the status of 'truth.'

Its the 'stooopud factory' of post modernism. Anything goes, as long as you and yourself feel it and can illucidate a personal narrative therefrom.

What do people do with a wide/open perceptual device?... come down very hard on one side to the exclusion of all others. Ironic.

Its hardly any wounder, that when folks engage free licence to rationalise self-referential perspectives, they end up in a battle with themselves. Convincing themselves of the value of their narratives. Capacity for logical, expansive thinking scampers off to the safety of opinion, subjectivity, ideology, toward the arbitrary.

When given the opportunity to think outside of the circle, the relativist hides in corners. Where things can be made to make sense, where its safe, where the ego can snuggle itself with its feelings and trick itself with rationalisation.

On one hand academia is informed by the value of the personal narrative and on the other, the broader society and academia itself, constantly advocates meta-narratives, like left versus right.

The one saving grace is that by the time young adults start university, most of them already know HOW to think, having figured out that schooling, society, family, institutions, government are only interested in teaching one WHAT to think. They prolly learn to switch hats, make the right noises, get the grades, get the ticket-to-ride and then get on with it.

It ties closely in with political correctness. Folks say whats accepted, dont say whats not and then vote with their feet.

'Common sense' is the problem that relativist personal narratives feed into. It not about giving commonly rationalised meaning to what the senses perceive. The point of eduction is to use the brain to THINK, logically, to push beyond the limited ability of the senses and how the appearance of what the senses perceive is often deceptive. eg. my senses tell me that l am not moving, but reason tells me that this planet never stops moving.

What of the Aboriginal academia ? What of their contribution or value ? With their desire and intention to re-write and to re-teach the history or this country ? And from their point of view ? With their stated agendas of "doing it for our people"? for more info on this issue, www.whitc.info/

Katharine starts her article by accusing her opponents of "Anti-intellectualism" but doesn't once stop to prove the charge or even to define what she means by it. This is nothing more than ad hominem attack, which by the way is not very intellectual.

She proceeds to mock the serious charge of indoctrination that has been laid against left wing academics: "Apparently we’re not educators, we’re indoctrinators. What a powerful charge!" Yes it is a powerful charge and it deserves a respectful, logical, powerful reply.

She then misrepresents the case: “I think you’re biased because I disagree with you. Therefore you must be biased. And bias is bad; very, very bad.” The Young Liberals claim that they are against indoctrination and in favour of freedom of expression. If Katharine finds that they are in fact stifling freedom of expression then let her give evidence of it.

As one who has many times seen the propensity of university lecturers in the humanities and social sciences to push left wing causes and intimidate and marginalise any who might disagree, I do see a need for publicly funded universities to be held to account. This is an issue that is beyond "left" and "right" wing categories and goes to the heart of what it is to be a good society, one that values truth-seeking in a climate of free and constructive debate.

"This is an issue that is beyond "left" and "right" wing categories and goes to the heart of what it is to be a good society, one that values truth-seeking in a climate of free and constructive debate"

Totally agree. But what happens when (hypothetically) you discover a truth that disagrees with your own ideological beliefs?

Its easy for non-teachers to provide comments from the side lines - much more difficult to actually design, administer, prepare, and deliver 14 weeks of lectures and tutorials.

Walk a mile in our shoes!

Need of the courage to protest against any action by any country that has not had legal agreement from both Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Most informative statement since WW2 was the one by Henry Kissinger that to allow little new Israel to go militarily nuclear would not only upset the balance of power in the Middle East for years to come, but has surely caused the increase in bitterness and hatred from Arab nations over those years.

Making the situation worse from an academic point of view was Israel's treatment of Mordecai, who from a philosophical viewpoint, should go down in history as one with courage enough to back statements as declared by Kissinger, as well as revealing the gutlessness of the time, not only shown by the UN but also by the silence of both Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Certainly the pride that an old soldier like myself felt following the rhetoric from the new UN during the Korean
War, is now buried in the shock and bitterness resulting from a world that has allowed America, just one nation to rule our globe and making such a mess of it by breaking laws that have also been proven from the trials and errors of both our religous and philosophical histories.

It is thus as Immanuel Kant declared:

From now on we cannot trust neither one nation nor even one man under God to rule this world, but preferably a
Federation of Nations.

From which of course grew the League of Nations and our present United Nations, but failed mostly by a single strong nation letting single nation characters like Condoleeza Rice move in trying to posture the tone of global justice.